Skip to content

fix(onboarding): make Submit onboarding hook async with try/catch/finally error handling#92020

Draft
mountiny wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/submit-onboarding-async-error-handling
Draft

fix(onboarding): make Submit onboarding hook async with try/catch/finally error handling#92020
mountiny wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/submit-onboarding-async-error-handling

Conversation

@mountiny
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny commented May 28, 2026

Explanation of Change

autoCreateSubmitWorkspace was calling completeOnboarding as fire-and-forget with no error handling. If the API call rejected (e.g. server error, network timeout), the user was silently stuck: navigation and Onyx cleanup code ran synchronously before the await, meaning the user landed on a broken state with stale onboarding keys still set.

Make the callback async and wrap completeOnboarding in try/catch/finally, matching the pattern already used by useAutoCreateTrackWorkspace:

  • try: awaits completeOnboarding — the API call now blocks navigation
  • catch: logs a warning via Log.warn — same as useAutoCreateTrackWorkspace
  • finally: always runs setOnboardingAdminsChatReportID(), setOnboardingPolicyID(), and navigateToSubmitWorkspaceAfterOnboardingWithMicrotaskQueue() — user always exits the onboarding screen regardless of API outcome

No shouldWaitForRHPVariantInitialization is needed — Submit doesn't consume the RHP variant from the response, and both createWorkspace and completeOnboarding use API.write() (same persisted sequential queue), so ordering is already guaranteed.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/389503

Tests

  1. Go through the EMPLOYER onboarding flow on web (submit workspace auto-creation path)
  2. Verify onboarding completes and you land on the Submit workspace
  3. To test the error case: mock completeOnboarding to reject, verify you still navigate to the workspace and are not stuck on the onboarding screen
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A — completeOnboarding already uses API.write() which handles offline via the persisted queue; this change does not alter offline behaviour.

QA Steps

  1. Create a fresh staging account
  2. Go through onboarding and select the EMPLOYER / Submit expenses intent
  3. Verify you land on the Submit workspace without errors
  4. Verify the onboarding flow does not re-appear on subsequent app launches
  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/A — no UI changes

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/A — no UI changes

iOS: Native

N/A — no UI changes

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/A — no UI changes

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/A — no UI changes

@mountiny @cursoragent
Make Submit onboarding hook async with try/catch/finally error handling
2660136 
The autoCreateSubmitWorkspace callback fired completeOnboarding as
fire-and-forget with no error handling. If the API call rejected, the
user was silently stuck; navigation and Onyx cleanup never ran.

Make the callback async and wrap completeOnboarding in try/catch/finally
matching the pattern already used by useAutoCreateTrackWorkspace, so
navigation and state cleanup always execute regardless of API outcome.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@mountiny mountiny requested a review from Copilot May 28, 2026 20:53
Copilot AI reviewed May 28, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR hardens the EMPLOYER/Submit onboarding auto-workspace creation flow by awaiting completeOnboarding() and ensuring cleanup + navigation always runs, even when the API call fails.

Changes:

  • Make useAutoCreateSubmitWorkspace’s callback async and wrap completeOnboarding() in try/catch/finally, logging failures via Log.warn.
  • Move Onyx cleanup (setOnboardingAdminsChatReportID, setOnboardingPolicyID) and post-onboarding navigation into finally so the user always exits onboarding.
  • Update and extend unit tests to await the hook and cover the rejection path.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
src/hooks/useAutoCreateSubmitWorkspace.ts Await onboarding completion with try/catch/finally, log failures, and always clear onboarding state + navigate.
tests/unit/hooks/useAutoCreateSubmitWorkspace.test.ts Await the async hook in relevant tests and add coverage for completeOnboarding rejection behavior.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@mountiny @cursoragent
Replace try/finally with try/catch + post-block cleanup for React Com…
5661913 
…piler

React Compiler cannot lower TryStatement with a finally clause inside
useCallback. Move setOnboarding*() and navigate() after the try/catch
block instead — they always execute regardless of whether the try body
or catch body ran, achieving the same semantics as finally.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

Copilot code review Copilot Copilot left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@mountiny mountiny

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@mountiny